Talk:Efforts to impeach Joe Biden

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden into Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. I think that the content in the first article is about the same exact thing in the Efforts to impeach Joe Biden article, the first one also contains content that is missing in Efforts to impeach Joe Biden article. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The merge cannot take place until the Afd has completed.

• Support; there is no formal impeachment inquiry at this time. The proposed target also contains information not covered in the article proposed to be merged. BD2412 T 02:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, We should split it if it gets any real traction, which it won't. 777burger ^{talk contribs} 03:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support; Greene filed Articles of Impeachment, not an inquiry. Unless this goes somewhere (which I'd be truly shocked if it does) it's better to merge. Jonmaxras (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - It appears to be the norm these days, immediately begin impeachment efforts against the other sides' leader. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support: No inquiry has begun, as that requires the House committees to hold hearings/meetings on them. Numerous articles of impeachment were filed against Trump each year of his presidency, but articles were only created for the two times formal proceedings were initiated. TheSubmarine (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support: we do not need duplication of this political theatre. KillerChihuahua 06:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Until there is a formal impeachment inquiry in the House I don't see a reason for the split. Volteer1 (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support: There's no reason for two pages that say essentially the same thing to co-exist. TJD2 (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Since there is no reason for 2 pages. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support As above 2 pages on a single topic can lead to chaos, as they may diverge and contradict one another. Geo Swan (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• 'Support: This is not an impeachment, and may not ever be. However, Greene filed Articles of Impeachment, which should be noted in the Efforts to Impeach Joe Biden article. (I made a more extended comment on the other discussion page about this matter, the AfD discussion for Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, per existing WP articles for Efforts to impeach X for X = Bush through Trump.)--FeralOink (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• If it hasn’t already been done, I support SRD625 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm for a full-on deletion with no redirect. There is no inquiry, nor has there ever been. To have such a redirect sort of implies that is not the case. SecretName101 (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Forget the redirect; both articles should be deleted on the spot. The notability for this topic goes far below the threshold of inconsequential. It can be briefly mentioned on Impeachments of presidents of the United States. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 17:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Right now, it's a singular effort to impeach Joe Biden, and while I think it's possible that over the course of four years, we'll probably get another, I'm not sure if what has currently happened meets notability for anything more than a subsection on the Impeachments of presidents of the United States HunterAlexBrown (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose as no such impeachment inquiry exists. Only an impeachment inquiry exists until the House Speaker announces one re: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: It's reasonable idea to merge "Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden" into "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden" as it's the current situation and it would be the suitable subject for this case Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

AfD closed as delete. All usable content is in this page.  Nixinova   T   C   01:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

POV

I've tagged this with POV as some of the language and content is clearly skewed against Biden. For example, 'Joe Biden's alleged wrongdoing' (which would be more neutrally worded as something like 'Allegations of misconduct') currently reads The Biden–Ukraine theory is a series of merited claims, directly in contradiction with the (much better sourced) article on the conspiracy, the opening sentence of which is 'The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of unevidenced claims centered on the false allegation that.... If I have the time I'll come back and rewrite it, but if someone is able to fix it in the meantime it'd be much appreciated. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 13:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

POV is hard to get since majority of RS either praise Biden or curse Biden. Maybe use what AP News says. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I had another look and the NPOV violating content was inserted by an IP editor, which I missed when adding the tag. I've reverted the IP's edits and removed that tag. Jr8825 • Talk 13:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Change "The impeachment articles" to "Impeachment articles by Marjorie Taylor Greene"

I believe that we should change the section title "The impeachment articles" to "Impeachment articles by Marjorie Taylor Greene" I recall, even when there was only a single series of impeachment that had been announced for Trump's second impeachment, we still referred to them by the author's name, rather than simply as "the articles". SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Though Marjorie Taylor Greene is a conspiracy-theorizing lunatic, renaming it as such sounds like a terrible idea, as the subject matter is Biden. I support simply deleting this page until there is something substantial to go off of. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 19:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm mainly looking at Efforts to impeach George W. Bush, where we refer to them as the "Kucinich–Wexler impeachment articles". SecretName101 (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

In the statement "false allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son Hunter Biden by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma", I recommend that the word FALSE be removed. There is no evidence that the allegation is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.91.226 (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I've revamped the page, including a change that somewhat implements this ("effort by MTG")  Nixinova   T   C   02:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Add the FBI government source of them investigating Joe and Hunter Biden for the Ukraine dealings.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.245.198 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory Further information: Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of unevidenced claims centered on the false allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son Hunter Biden by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.[1]

First impeachment trial of Donald Trump Main article: First impeachment trial of Donald Trump Further information: Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal In February 2020, Iowa Senator Joni Ernst suggested that if Biden were elected, he could be impeached over alleged dealings with Ukraine.[2]

I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened. ... Joe Biden should be very careful what he's asking for because, you know, we can have a situation where if it should ever be President Biden, that immediately, people, right the day after he would be elected would be saying, 'Well, we’re going to impeach him'.[2]

In Trump's defense during the trial, Florida attorney general Pam Bondi dedicated most of her time discussing the motive behind Trump's actions, citing the unevidenced conspiracy theory involving the Bidens and Burisma, saying, "We would prefer not to be talking about this. But the House managers have placed this squarely at issue, so we must address it." She repeated allegations that Joe Biden had sought the removal of Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, who was ostensibly investigating the firm that employed Hunter Biden, though this action was in agreement with the foreign policy of the United States and other Western governments towards Ukraine at the time. Bondi did not mention that both Western governments and non-governmental organizations had sought Shokin's removal because they believed he was corrupt and that the Burisma investigation had gone dormant under him.[3] Bondi also falsely asserted that The New York Times reported in 2015 that Shokin was investigating Burisma and its owner.[4]

Inauguration of Joe Biden Main article: Inauguration of Joe Biden On January 13, 2021, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA.) stated that she would file articles of impeachment against Joe Biden alleging abuse of power on January 21, 2021, the day after Biden's inauguration, further stating in an interview that "We cannot have a President of the United States that is willing to abuse the power of the presidency and be easily bought off by foreign governments, Chinese energy companies, Ukrainian energy companies".[5]

On January 20, 2021, Joe Biden was inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States. Senator Kamala Harris was sworn in as the Vice President of the United States.

The impeachment articles Wikisource has original text related to this article: Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against President Joe Biden Main article: Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden The six articles of impeachment were filed less than thirty hours into Biden's term. Greene alleged that Joe Biden "will do whatever it takes to bail out his son, Hunter, and line his family's pockets with cash from corrupt foreign energy companies."[6] The articles additionally state that Biden abused his power during his tenure as Vice President of the United States by allowing his son, Hunter Biden, to siphon cash off foreign powers such as Russia and China.[7]

Biden has denied being involved in U.S. foreign policy related to his son's work. A Senate Republican investigation in 2020 found no evidence of wrongdoing, hearing "witness testimony that rebutted those charges"

To

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden for his corrupt actions involving his quid pro quo in Ukraine and his abuse of power by allowing his son, Hunter Biden, to siphon off cash from America’s greatest enemies Russia and China.

Congresswoman Greene released the following statement:

"President Joe Biden is unfit to hold the office of the Presidency. His pattern of abuse of power as President Obama's Vice President is lengthy and disturbing. President Biden has demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to bail out his son, Hunter, and line his family's pockets with cash from corrupt foreign energy companies.

President Biden is even on tape admitting to a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government threatening to withhold $1,000,000,000 in foreign aid if they did not do his bidding. President Biden residing in the White House is a threat to national security and he must be immediately impeached."

The case against President Joe Biden is vast and detailed:

Joe Biden abused the power of the Office of the Vice President, enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, by allowing his son to influence the domestic policy of a foreign nation and accept various benefits—including financial compensation—from foreign nationals in exchange for certain favors.

The evidence of widespread knowledge, corruption, and collusion on behalf of the Biden family with foreign nationals is clear and compelling.

As Vice President, Joe Biden was the senior Obama Administration official overseeing anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. Hence, any illegal activity involving corruption conducted by Hunter Biden within or in relation to Ukraine would fall under the purview of the Office of Vice President Biden and the Obama State Department’s anti-corruption efforts. In fact, many State Department officials within the Obama Administration repeatedly registered reservations about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of a corrupt company. Thus, any instances of corruption on behalf of Hunter Biden via his role as a board member of the Ukrainian-operated Burisma energy firm were intentionally not investigated or covered up.

In 2016, Ukraine’s top anti-corruption prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had an active and ongoing investigation into Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. At the time, Hunter Biden continued to serve on Burisma’s board of directors. According to news reports, then Vice-President Biden “threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss [Shokin].” After that, Ukraine’s Parliament fired Shokin.

During his father’s vice presidency, Hunter Biden built many business relationships with foreign nationals and received millions of dollars from foreign sources, seemingly in exchange for access to his father. The financial transactions which Hunter engaged in illustrates serious counterintelligence and extortion concerns relating to Hunter Biden and his family.

President Biden gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government. Through blatant nepotism, he enabled his son to influence foreign policy and financially benefit as a result of his role as Vice President. He supported his son engaging in collusion with Chinese Communist party-linked officials. He allowed his son to trade appointments with his father and other high-ranking administration officials in exchange for financial compensation. He permitted his son to take money from Russian oligarchs, including Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow. 147.71.76.14 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, you want to switch the current text containing a half-dozen citations to reliable sources to wholly unsourced text? BD2412 T 22:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: In addition to the sourcing issue, this is extremely unlikely to go in the article because of the blatant failure to abide by WP:NPOV (in addition to being uncritically copied content from political statements, which are not reliable for anything but the opinion of their author). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, you need to provide reliable sources for statements, and word things in a way that is neither biased or misleading. Phrases like "America's greatest enemies" seldom have a place in wikipedia articles. BasicSID (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed the word "the"

I removed the word "The" in the section heading "The Impeachment articles," as well as the definite article at the start of the body paragraph. I believe these to be minor changes, so I went ahead and performed the edits. However, I would also like to respect the invisible comment in the article's source by mentioning the change on this talk page. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 00:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

This article should be deleted, or at least merged with Taylor-Greene's. These impeachment efforts fail to meet notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.13.58 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• We have this same discussion every ... four ... years, and it always ends up the same, as demonstrated by the continued existence of the preceding three links. BD2412 T 01:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Also, things like this are happening, which is apparently how the world works now. BD2412 T 01:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose SRD625 (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

This is about this edit that's been reverted as apparently irrelevant. Sources like these [1] make the link: "Greene's support of Trump continued as the president repeatedly claimed that the election had been stolen from him by Democrats." with the "stop the steal" campaign covered at that overturn article. I suppose that the article prose could make the link instead but have no time to waste on this and will let other editors evaluate. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The article relates to the whole Hunter Biden-Ukraine situation and not the whole fraud hoax.PailSimon (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

If he was impeached, the result would not technically be an overturn. On the other hand, this is obviously related in the chain of events, especially from the same person (some also suggested that this article should be merged in the BLP before). As noted above, sources also make the link. —PaleoNeonate – 04:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The source simply mentions it, it does not tie it in with the impeachment attempt.PailSimon (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: "Ms Greene, who is a pro-Trump election fraud conspiracy theorist" "Nobody, but nobody, was Trumpier than Greene in supporting the president’s efforts to overturn his election defeat". Of course, this should be mentioned.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Now linked in prose supported by the two above sources, —PaleoNeonate – 15:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Should I create a related article"?: SecretName101's quick thoughts that might help answer your question

Nobody asked, but I’m going to share some thoughts at the moment about when and if other articles on the subject of impeachment can or should be created. I’m very involved in the topic of impeachment on Wikipedia, so I have some thoughts on this and knowledge in the subject area. Obviously, this is just my opinion, and it’s also only my opinion at this moment not knowing what unexpected circumstances might occur. That said, it might help inform someone who is questioning whether to create a draft or article related to any future Biden impeachment developments that may or may not occur.

• Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden: This should be created only once an actual inquiry had been started. From the journalistic and scholarly consensus at the moment, this either happens when a) The Speaker declares an impeachment inquiry has been launched or b) The House otherwise formally votes to launch an impeachment inquiry
  Note: The key phrase is "impeachment inquiry". Many investigations will be taken into Joe Biden, and they will be on topics that could lead to a hypothetical impeachment. That does not make those investigations impeachment inquiries.
  Be very cautious. Only once it is a mainstream consensus that an impeachment inquiry has been launched will it be appropriate to create such an article. A lone article or two mis-labeling other investigations as an "impeachment inquiry" or a comment by a congressperson (with the exception of the speaker of the house) characterizing an investigation as such does not mean that there is an impeachment inquiry.

 Done Update (November 2023): This article, of course, now exists due to the launch of an inquiry in September. The article was created within hours of the announcement of the inquiry's launch, and has been expanded since.

• Impeachment of Joe Biden: If Biden has actually been impeached, with articles of impeachment or a resolution otherwise impeaching him being adopted by a majority of the House, then it is appropriate to publish such an article.
  If there is an anticipated impeachment vote scheduled, it would be permissible to have such an article in the draft-space ready for publication. Or, alternatively, an article tentatively titled something like "October 2023 vote on articles of impeachment against Joe Biden" could be published, to be retitled if the articles pass, and potentially kept under that name or otherwise merged into this article if the articles fail to be adopted by the House.

• Impeachment trial of Joe Biden: I think it'd be appropriate to create an article on a likely pending trial if articles of impeachment/a resolution to impeach have already passed in the House. Worst case scenario: No trial is ever held and the content is probably merged or the article retitled.

• List of impeachment resolutions introduced against Joe Biden: the similarly-titled article for Donald Trump only exists because the article Efforts to impeach Donald Trump was so long that it felt inappropriate for me to add this content to it. Such an article would be justified only if it makes sense to spin-off the similar content currently contained in this very article (Efforts to impeach Joe Biden); if it would necessarily spare this article of excess length.

• Articles of impeachment adopted against Joe Biden: Only if there is significant information about the creation of the articles or if the articles have complex enough subject matter to explore that a spun-off article is justifiable. Also, obviously, the articles must have been adopted to use a title identical to this. Also, first ask, "does this need to be its own article, or can this very content comfortably fit within another article?"

• Timeline of efforts to impeach Joe Biden: If it seems there is a complicated enough series of events to justify a separate article with a timeline. Please ask yourself, though: would a timeline be better suited simply to be contained in the article "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden" rather than spun-off

If this was helpful to anyone, I'm glad. If anyone disagrees or has further thoughts along these lines, feel free to share.

SecretName101 (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder, we also have Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and Efforts to impeach Barack Obama, both of which ended at the "efforts" stage, and therefore generated no related articles. BD2412 T 05:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412 Yes, definitely. This is just my effort to help ward-off any premature creation of related articles. SecretName101 (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fair.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

These might be coming in to play, and I urge anyone thinking of creating an "impeachment inquiry" article to consult these. Some (two articles in mainstream news) are describing a recent vote to refer articles to committee as an impeachment "investigation" or "inquiry". That seems to be a mis-label however, since no legislation gave such a distinction nor has the speaker been describing the move as launching an impeachment inquiry as far as I can tell. It's not a mainstream consensus yet, just seems to be outlying articles. This runs somewhat parallel to the advice I gave months ago:

Only once it is a mainstream consensus that an impeachment inquiry has been launched will it be appropriate to create such an article. A lone article or two mis-labeling other investigations as an "impeachment inquiry" or a comment by a congressperson (with the exception of the speaker of the house) characterizing an investigation as such does not mean that there is an impeachment inquiry.

SecretName101 (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Since McCarthy, on July 24, 2023, said that investigations seem like they are rising towards an impeachment inquiry, that appears to verify that one currently does not exist. SecretName101 (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Seems like it’s go time on one of these with McCarthy’s latest announcement. I’m really busy at the moment this afternoon (so won’t be doing much editing), but as news develops of the inquiry action it will be appropriate to create an article dedicated to it. SecretName101 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

it's not an impeachment proceeding, it's an inquiry soibangla (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

We had - and still have - Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. It seems an inquiry itself is article-worthy (I will refrain from qualifying with a need for sources, since that part will take care of itself). BD2412 T 18:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla yes it is an inquiry, you are right. Hence why the article title of the new article is Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden rather than something like "Impeachment of Joe Biden" Is there a concern you want to address? SecretName101 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

vote totals chart

There was a full debate and a vote on the subject. The vote totals need to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.231.109 (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The vote total is mentioned in the table outlining introduced resolutions. It was a procedural vote on whether to refer the resolution to committees, not a vote on impeachment itself. We don't tend to create full tables on procedural votes like that. SecretName101 (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"Some political commentators..."

This needs to be clarified and/or sourced:

"Some political commentators have characterized the desire to impeach Biden as being driven by resentment of many Republicans over the two impeachments of Biden's Republican predecessor, Donald Trump."

"Some" is generally considered to be a weasel word. Also, it's highly speculative. Any partisan political action could be construed as stemming from "resentment" but unless it's been seriously analyzed (and I doubt it has in such a short period of time), it doesn't mean much. 2603:7081:1603:A300:5D2A:5E39:2A96:6A62 (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@2603:7081:1603:A300:5D2A:5E39:2A96:6A62 There are five articles that are cited after that to demonstrate that this is an observation that has been made by a sizable number of political commentators (cited following "Some analysts have observed that, due to the two impeachments that Donald Trump faced in his presidency, many in the Republican Party have a desire to exact revenge on Democrats by impeaching a Democratic president" in the body).

Additionally it is not at all "highly speculative". If you read this article, you will find that Republican congresspeople and senators have actually said as much themselves. For example (as stated in this article):

Hinting at retribution for the impeachments of Biden's Republican predecessor Donald Trump, Cruz used the phrase-of-speech, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

and

Senator Cornyn also opined that impeachment of presidents was become a routine action, blaming Democrats for their impeachments of Trump, commenting "unfortunately, what goes around, comes around."

and

A number of Republican congresspeople at the time commented that a potential impeachment of Biden would serve as a retaliation for the impeachments of Donald Trump

SecretName101 (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Another impeachment resolution introduced

On August 11, Greg Steube introduced H.Res.652, a resolution to impeach Joe Biden on "high crimes and misdemeanors." There are four articles:

• Article I: Abuse of Power, Bribery, Hobbs Act Extortion, and Honest Services Fraud
• Article II: Obstruction of Congress
• Article III: Fraud
• Article IV: Financial Involvement in Drug and Prostitution Activities

Please teach me how to insert this information into the article under the resolutions introduced in the 118th Congress; I cannot copy and paste text from those articles word-for-word. HarukaAmaranth (話) 03:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@HarukaAmaranth adding it to the table myself; next time please ping myself or another frequent editor next time. The talk page is not always populated by eyes, unless you ping us (my ping is {{Ping|SecretName101}}) SecretName101 (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

"Impeachment of Joe Biden" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Impeachment of Joe Biden has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3 § Impeachment of Joe Biden until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Biased tone

The wording of this article comes across as highly opinionated, clearly favoring one of the parties and therefore lacking objectivity. 79.139.131.172 (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@79.139.131.172 please elaborate with specific examples of bias within the article. Blanketed accusations of bias do not help anyone with remedying any problems. SecretName101 (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The very first paragraph:

mostly in retaliation for the first and second impeachments of 45th U.S. president Donald Trump in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

mostly in retaliation for the first and second impeachments of 45th U.S. president Donald Trump in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

That's an opinion, and an unsourced one at that. If you said something like "pundits claim the impeachments are in retaliation of the impeachments of Donald Trump", and then source it, the article would appear far less biased. 71.83.169.170 (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you looked at any of the citations or read any of the article past that point? There was talk of Biden's impeachment even before Biden was elected...USA Today ""I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened. Joe Biden should be very careful what he’s asking for because, you know, we can have a situation where if it should ever be President Biden, that immediately people right the day after he would be elected would be saying, ‘Well, we’re going to impeach him.'" - Joni Ernst

"A Biden impeachment would be an act of pure spite and revenge. Texas Senator Ted Cruz made this clear on a podcast in December when he suggested that a Biden impeachment—“whether it’s justified or not”—was a logical response to the two impeachments of Donald Trump" - The Nation

Then, you have Trump's own comments..."Former President Donald Trump has “no idea” whether Republicans will vote to impeach President Joe Biden. But he does have a theory on what motivated House Republicans to launch a Biden impeachment inquiry: revenge. “They did it to me,” Trump told former Fox and NBC host Megyn Kelly during an hourlong interview on SiriusXM radio that aired Thursday. “And had they not done it to me, I think, and nobody officially said this, but I think had they not done it to me … perhaps you wouldn’t have it being done to them.” Politico

I could go on and on and on....Just read the article. DN (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

1. The article states the impeachments are MOSTLY in retaliation. The keyword being MOSTLY. Personally, I think it's true but it's just speculation. A couple of Republicans talking about retaliating against Biden only means it's a fact that SOME want to impeach to retaliate.

2. If a claim is made, it should be cited after the sentence making the claim. An excellent an example of this is seen in this very article. Look at the sentence: "Some analysts have observed that, due to the two impeachments that Donald Trump faced in his presidency, many in the Republican Party have a desire to exact revenge on Democrats by impeaching a Democratic president." This is properly cited and is factual. 172.222.204.215 (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

1. Trump's own comments seem to corroborate this "claim", as evidenced in sources

2. We don't normally put citations in the LEAD per WP:MOS however this context may be an exception per MOS:LEADCITE...Thanks for the suggestion. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump's comments do not make it a fact, it makes it his opinion. Do I think it’s likely, absolutely. But it's not a fact. We do not KNOW that the impeachment attempts are MOSTLY in retaliation but that SOME people are in favor of impeachment in retaliation. Your cited sources do not change this. As such, statement in the lead should be changed to be similar to the statement in the background section to reflect that uncertainty. 172.222.204.215 (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying Trump's opinions have nothing to do with facts? Whether or not we should include Trump's comment on the matter in the LEAD is up to consensus, not simply "you or me". The rest is irrelevant. DN (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Trumps opinions are not necessarily facts, he could be right, and he could be wrong. Also, I am not saying they are irrelevant to the article. But Trumps opinions on the matter does not make it a fact that the impeachments are MOSTLY in retaliation. You could state, something like, “According to Donald Trump, the impeachments are mostly in retaliation of his own impeachments.” That is a fact based on Trumps opinion. At no point though does the lead say it is Trumps opinion or infer as such but states it as a fact. Also, I know it’s up to consensus and I am giving my view that it should be changed. That’s the whole point of these discussions. 172.222.204.215 (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

So your opinion is that their opinions are not facts, therefore the lead should say something other than what MOST of the sources are saying? Are you proposing we list each attribution one by one in the lead? How else would we summarize what sources are, in fact, saying "in their opinion"? DN (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the OP that characterizations like this are best presented as quotes from the sources. BD2412 T 13:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It should say what most sources are saying but in as correct a manner as possible. Being a current political issue, I think it's important to differentiate between facts and opinions when we can. To summarize sources giving their opinion use a qualifier such as "many analysts". An example of this is the similar sentence in the background section, which essentially states the same thing but in a way that I believe is more accurate. My

My question is how would ch the phrasing to be similar to the sentence in the background make the statement less accurate? I've stated why it would make it more accurate.anging 71.83.169.170 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Part of the problem with that suggestion is that it isn't just "analysts". There are/were a number of sources within the GOP itself saying this, or something to that effect. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed here before, but I'm not sure how far back into the archives this goes, or if there is an established consensus for the current iteration. If you wish to establish a consensus for the change it may or may not require an RfC. DN (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Then you use a qualifier such as "some" and not "mostly". Secondly, the only Republican I can see in the sources clearly saying it's in retaliation is Trump, the other are analysts opinions. For example, the Cruz citation you mentioned can be inferred that the attempted impeachments are in retaliation but that it IS in retaliation is the analyst's opinion. 71.83.169.170 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, if you disagree, I would suggest an RfC to get consensus to add a qualifier to the lead. These sources do not appear as "opinion pieces" or editorials. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If you don't think the Cruz article you linked and I used as an example is an opinion piece, I don't think you know what an opinion piece is. They aren't always labeled, especially when it comes to sites such as The Nation, which is mostly opinion pieces and news mixed with opinion.

Do you really think the statement: "A Biden impeachment would be an act of pure spite and revenge" is a fact when the supporting evidence in the next line is: "Texas Senator Ted Cruz made this clear on a podcast in December when he suggested that a Biden impeachment—“whether it’s justified or not”—was a logical response to the two impeachments of Donald Trump." No, it's clearly the author's opinion.

I don't honestly care if it's changed or not. This conversation started based on an accusation of bias and I pointed out what could be perceived as bias. 71.83.169.170 (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"If you don't think the Cruz article you linked and I used as an example is an opinion piece, I don't think you know what an opinion piece is" If that was the only source for this entire article you might have had a point, but clearly you do not. DN (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I was simply using that as an exmaple. You said, "These sources do not appear as "opinion pieces" or editorials", so I thought an example warranted. Can you show me which citation supports that the impeachments were mostly in retaliation that is not an opinion or quoting Trump?

Now, which source supporting the argument it's mainly in retaliation is not either an opinion or quoting Trump?

Of course this is distracting from the point it doesn't matter if you can find 100 different Republicans talking directly about impeaching in retaliation, that doesn't mean the impeachments were MOSTLY in retaliation only that SOME Republicans are in favor of impeachment in retaliation. 71.83.169.170 (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"I don't honestly care if it's changed or not." If that's truly the case I don't see the point in engaging further. At this point your intentions are unclear. Au revoir. DN (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I clearly stated my intention, I commented on potential bias. Now, I'm arguing my point against refutation. Whether it is actually changed doesn't matter.

It seems to me as if you made an assertion but can't back up the claim. O

Oh Was an interesting chat on a slow day.well. 71.83.169.170 (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent citations from ABC News and The Independent

Just adding some recent news articles and interesting quotes for consideration here.

12/12/2023 ABC News What to know about the House vote to formalize the Biden impeachment inquiry "Moderate Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who said he'll vote in favor of the impeachment inquiry, was asked Tuesday if a vote to impeach Biden is inevitable if the inquiry is formalized. "I don't think so," he responded. "I may be an outlier on this. I think it's more important to have this information for the elections, let the voters decide," Bacon said. "And I don't know that you're gonna see a high crime or misdemeanor, but I think the voters deserve to know what did the Bidens do."

12/12/2023 The Independent Why do Republicans want to impeach Joe Biden? "In a lengthy document released on Monday 11 September, Mr Raskin noted the failure of Republicans to obtain testimony from any witnesses actually alleging the occurrence of wrongdoing by the president, including from supposed GOP star witness Devon Archer." DN (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Wording

I’m concerned about the tone of doubt over the impeachment inquiries. From what I see, Wikipedia appears to say that there is absolutely no relevant evidence for an impeachment inquiry, which is untrue. I’m worried it would harm the impartiality of Wikipedia if we kept this up. NathanBru (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If there is indeed relevant evidence identified as such by reliable sources, then that absolutely should be included. What language and what sources would you propose to use for this purpose? BD2412 T 20:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Under impeachment inquiry, it says “The inquiry comes despite the fact that House investigation into Biden and his family had not found evidence of wrongdoing by the president.” And several news sources are listed after. But other news sources disagree, such as Fox and the New York Post. NathanBru (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This link should help. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

There are specific reasons some sources, like the New York Times, are considered generally reliable, while others are generally not, such as the New York Post. The link goes into detail as to why. There are also sources, like Fox News, that are only considered reliable for certain topics and unreliable for other topics. In general, it is best to avoid blogs and opinion pieces with little to no oversight or accountability, with only a few exceptions. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As BD2412 says, your request requires reliable sources. Normally, there should already be context and sources listed in the body of an article before it is considered for inclusion in the lead. Please try to avoid any more attempts to insert MOS:DOUBT in the lead without first providing sources and achieving a consensus for inclusion. We are happy to help. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This is completely biased article

The first line says "viewed as retaliation" but this is an opinion as no evidence exist for this statement. 2406:2D40:41C0:D110:B5F6:31A7:9135:2FF2 (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

To say that something is "viewed as" is to relay that the opinion exists in sources. For example, here is a piece by Politico, reporting on such an opinion existing: "‘They did it to me': Trump says Biden impeachment inquiry might be motivated by revenge". BD2412 T 02:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

Changes to the lead like this might be better served with some discussion and hopefully a consensus.

• "viewed as mostly in retaliation for the first and second impeachments of 45th U.S. president Donald Trump in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

The reasoning behind it states that the bottom paragraph "more neutrally addresses thus", making the top part fairly redundant, which is understandable, however, these don't exactly say the same thing. Do sources only refer to a "number of prominent republican lawmakers"? Trump is not a republican lawmaker, yet he is also a proponent of this view.

• "A number of prominent Republican lawmakers have indicated their motivation towards impeachment as being driven by resentment over the two impeachments of Biden's Republican predecessor, Donald Trump."

Instead of reverting per WP:STATUSQUO, for now I will copy edit this portion and add Trump to the portion of the paragraph where it was originally placed in the lead. Hopefully, we can amicably iron out any of the other details without having to start from scratch. Cheers. DN (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

where will we put the new impeachment proceedings?

I'm guessing it won't fit here or in the inquiry article soibangla (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla What new proceedings were you talking about? Everything so far is in the scope of the inquiry or pre-inquiry attempts.

Were you referring to the impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas? SecretName101 (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Article's protection

Hi. The page itself is still semi-protected up to this day but there is no Protection Template icon on the top-right corner. What on earth could possibly be a mistake here?197.240.155.207 (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@197.240.155.207 I think since it went from being a redirect to being an article recently, the protection was maybe somehow removed? Perhaps because there is a difference between a protected article and protected redirect? I am not sure. I think if the article is subject to problematic editing, it'll have its protection re-added. SecretName101 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@SecretName101 I guess that you may have to discuss the issue with users specialized in the above WikiProjects. They may be there to help.197.240.155.207 (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

How long is this page being protected? Up till now, there still isn't a protection template attached ({{pp-protected}}, {{pp-semi}} or {{pp-vandalism}}).197.2.108.111 (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Bias

Please add citations to make following reputable: "A number of prominent Republican lawmakers, along with Donald Trump and some of his political allies, have indicated the motivation behind efforts to impeach Biden is also driven by resentment over Trump's previous two impeachments." RainbowBambi (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

same answer you got at the Trump article applies here. the lead is rarely citated, that comes later in the article. ValarianB (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)